Author Topic: UK internet censoring  (Read 12212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2023, 08:17:45 pm »
The problem with that is that the sexuality is in the mind of the observer, not the nude person.

It is entirely possible to have one nude person, two observers, and only one observer thinking of sexual activity. Which view should dominate?

Here's a clear (to me) example of that. In the US there appear to be creepy beauty pagents where parents dress their ?5-10? year old children like adults, including full makeup. I was gobsmacked when I heard about those, due to the Jon Ramsey Benet case hitting the headlines.

Sure but you can't control how an observer perceives something, and that is part of the problem with some of this "culture war" stuff that is going on. Some people are focused on trying to demand others to perceive something in a certain way and that is just fundamentally flawed, it's not possible to do. You can't stop an observer from possibly sexualizing in their head a nude person that they're observing, but there is a HUGE difference between say a centerfold from a Penthouse magazine and a photo of a nude female in a biology textbook.

Not when I was an adolescent ;) One was more available than the other, doubly so since I have to stretch to reach the top shelf.

Quote
Yes those pageants where they tart up toddlers and parade them around in front of a room full of adults  are repulsive, contrary to how it may appear I'm no prude, I consider myself "sex positive", I'm perfectly fine with adults doing whatever they want with other consenting adults with no shame in that and if statistics are to be believed I've had more partners than is average in my country, but I set a hard boundary between children, especially pre-pubescent children, and adults. Sexualizing pre-pubescent children is revolting and I think there is something seriously wrong with people that want to do that.

I completely agree, as is self-evident from what I've said before.

But you appear to be confusing that revolting behaviour with letting an interested child research and understand the (physical) facts of how our bodies work. Very different.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2023, 09:13:07 pm »
That's not really comparable: one-off education vs potentially repetitive habit.

Nonetheless, I would probably do what my mother did when my brother became interested in smoking (back when smoking was normal and non-smoking exceptional). She bought a pack of fags and let him smoke them all. Naturally he was sick, and became a lifelong non-smoker. Job done.

Forbidding/denying young people something is an excellent way to get them to surreptitiously/furtively investigate something. Not good behaviour on the part of the parent or child, IMHO.

When I was maybe 2 or 3 I remember being fascinated watching people smoke cigarettes in restaurants which was a common thing back then, because the end would light up whenever they would draw from it and I was obsessed with light bulbs and lighting. I was always told they were dirty and disgusting and that stuck, I never had any desire to smoke, nobody had to demand that I not do it, they just impressed upon me that it was gross and bad. I think that worked better than giving me a pack of cigarettes and telling me to go ahead and smoke them all.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2023, 09:18:56 pm »
That's not really comparable: one-off education vs potentially repetitive habit.

Nonetheless, I would probably do what my mother did when my brother became interested in smoking (back when smoking was normal and non-smoking exceptional). She bought a pack of fags and let him smoke them all. Naturally he was sick, and became a lifelong non-smoker. Job done.

Forbidding/denying young people something is an excellent way to get them to surreptitiously/furtively investigate something. Not good behaviour on the part of the parent or child, IMHO.

When I was maybe 2 or 3 I remember being fascinated watching people smoke cigarettes in restaurants which was a common thing back then, because the end would light up whenever they would draw from it and I was obsessed with light bulbs and lighting. I was always told they were dirty and disgusting and that stuck, I never had any desire to smoke, nobody had to demand that I not do it, they just impressed upon me that it was gross and bad. I think that worked better than giving me a pack of cigarettes and telling me to go ahead and smoke them all.

There are, indeed, many ways to skin a cat. Choose whichever way best suits you and the cat.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2023, 09:33:28 pm »
That's not really comparable: one-off education vs potentially repetitive habit.

Nonetheless, I would probably do what my mother did when my brother became interested in smoking (back when smoking was normal and non-smoking exceptional). She bought a pack of fags and let him smoke them all. Naturally he was sick, and became a lifelong non-smoker. Job done.

Forbidding/denying young people something is an excellent way to get them to surreptitiously/furtively investigate something. Not good behaviour on the part of the parent or child, IMHO.

When I was maybe 2 or 3 I remember being fascinated watching people smoke cigarettes in restaurants which was a common thing back then, because the end would light up whenever they would draw from it and I was obsessed with light bulbs and lighting. I was always told they were dirty and disgusting and that stuck, I never had any desire to smoke, nobody had to demand that I not do it, they just impressed upon me that it was gross and bad. I think that worked better than giving me a pack of cigarettes and telling me to go ahead and smoke them all.
Me too, although I admit, I did occasionally smoke at school, when I was a teenager, but never got hooked. I did it due to a mixture of curiosity and showing off. I doubt there would have been anything my parents could have done to stop me. I knew the punishment would have been a detention at school and no computer/TV/games console, but I didn't get caught.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2023, 09:38:02 pm »
I think it also helped that I had a couple of relatives that were regularly trying unsuccessfully to quit. Then when I was a bit older I had friends that were constantly struggling to get people to buy them cigarettes and on top of that it smelled gross so it just never seemed logical to me. I mean why start doing something that costs a lot of money, is a pain to support when I'm not old enough to buy them myself and smells gross? I could see no reason to do it. Even if I had thought it looked cool, being an electricity obsessed autistic kid I was so far from cool there was no point in trying to be anyway.
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #105 on: July 13, 2023, 08:43:02 am »
The fact that you describe genitals as "naughty bits" speaks volumes.

It's a term that I heard somewhere and thought it sounded funny, what exactly are you reading into those volumes that it speaks? It seems you've formed a complete picture of me based on a word I used in attempt to mix in a little humor and to be polite in mixed company. I'd encourage you to try to be a tad less prejudiced and not jump to conclusions.

Calling genitals "naughty bits" is one of the tools by which people are taught to be ashamed of nudity, it has nothing to do with being polite, and the only humour attached to it is that of a sniggering schoolboy talking about something he isn't supposed to. I need not jump to any conclusions; you already admitted in the same post that you "prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner", clear evidence of the societal conditioning I was alluding to. I am not blaming or criticising you personally, but making an observation regarding the social norms programmed into you.

Using the correct terminology is not impolite, in any company; it provides clarity.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #106 on: July 13, 2023, 09:01:58 am »
Arguing about nudity, you're all yelling at the wrong cloud.

These legislation changes are intended to reflect and also be considerate of the inevitable evolving socio-culture of the UK. That means the focus is on modesty, not nudity.
iratus parum formica
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #107 on: July 13, 2023, 11:41:50 am »
Arguing about nudity, you're all yelling at the wrong cloud.

These legislation changes are intended to reflect and also be considerate of the inevitable evolving socio-culture of the UK. That means the focus is on modesty, not nudity.

As a UK resident of more than 50 years, I can tell you there is no focus on modesty these days.

Censorship is never about modesty, or nudity, it's about mind control.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2023, 05:15:51 pm »
Calling genitals "naughty bits" is one of the tools by which people are taught to be ashamed of nudity, it has nothing to do with being polite, and the only humour attached to it is that of a sniggering schoolboy talking about something he isn't supposed to. I need not jump to any conclusions; you already admitted in the same post that you "prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner", clear evidence of the societal conditioning I was alluding to. I am not blaming or criticising you personally, but making an observation regarding the social norms programmed into you.

Using the correct terminology is not impolite, in any company; it provides clarity.


Maybe English is not your first language? The term "naughty bits" is common slang, don't read too much into it, people use slang all the time, you knew exactly what I was referring to didn't you? So what more clarity is needed? I don't think it's unusual to prefer not to be nude around random people, it doesn't mean shame, many people simply prefer a bit of modesty, there are just some things I prefer to save for certain people rather than just any old person that comes along. As far as social norms, sure, everyone has social norms, that's part of what defines culture, which is part of what defines society.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
 
The following users thanked this post: SiliconWizard

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2023, 07:00:02 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.
 

Online SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15800
  • Country: fr
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2023, 09:33:44 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.

For those that haven't lived in such regimes and can't fathom what that means, read 1984. The whole thing is very well explained.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7858
  • Country: au
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2023, 11:59:59 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

I dunno, I get pretty terrified when a Boss describes the latest hare-brained scheme as a "win-win situation".
 

Offline AVGresponding

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4931
  • Country: england
  • Exploring Rabbit Holes Since The 1970s
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2023, 09:14:51 am »
Calling genitals "naughty bits" is one of the tools by which people are taught to be ashamed of nudity, it has nothing to do with being polite, and the only humour attached to it is that of a sniggering schoolboy talking about something he isn't supposed to. I need not jump to any conclusions; you already admitted in the same post that you "prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner", clear evidence of the societal conditioning I was alluding to. I am not blaming or criticising you personally, but making an observation regarding the social norms programmed into you.

Using the correct terminology is not impolite, in any company; it provides clarity.


Maybe English is not your first language? The term "naughty bits" is common slang, don't read too much into it, people use slang all the time, you knew exactly what I was referring to didn't you? So what more clarity is needed? I don't think it's unusual to prefer not to be nude around random people, it doesn't mean shame, many people simply prefer a bit of modesty, there are just some things I prefer to save for certain people rather than just any old person that comes along. As far as social norms, sure, everyone has social norms, that's part of what defines culture, which is part of what defines society.

I am English, and English is my first language. I am aware of the usage of the phrase, and I am pointing out why it exists as a slang term. It's not unusual to prefer to not be nude around random people in cultures dominated by Abrahamic religions, mostly. Other cultures are often less prudish. There is a direct link between language and culture, and furthermore, both are in constant evolution, hence this thread, amongst other things.

I don't mind the use of slang at all; learning about the way other cultures approach things is interesting to me. The divide between the UK and US is a curious one. We have a great deal of common history and culture, but the branching in the 17th century has sent the US down a path that is at times utterly perplexing to those of us in the UK that take an interest in these things. Most people of course notice no difference at all, and live their lives in happy ignorance; I often wonder if I would be happier if I was as disengaged.
Though I don't mind the use of slang, I do like for people to understand the cultural roots of the slang they use, as it almost always has subtle undertones that can be misunderstood by people from different cultures, and indeed can be missed even by denizens of the culture of origin.
nuqDaq yuch Dapol?
Addiction count: Agilent-AVO-BlackStar-Brymen-Chauvin Arnoux-Fluke-GenRad-Hameg-HP-Keithley-IsoTech-Mastech-Megger-Metrix-Micronta-Racal-RFL-Siglent-Solartron-Tektronix-Thurlby-Time Electronics-TTi-UniT
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2023, 12:39:21 pm »
I believe the term "naughty bits" was invented by Monty Python for a comedy sketch "How to Recognise Different Parts of the Body" where naughty bits were covered up by polka-dot underwear.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #115 on: July 14, 2023, 12:52:41 pm »
I believe the term "naughty bits" was invented by Monty Python for a comedy sketch "How to Recognise Different Parts of the Body" where naughty bits were covered up by polka-dot underwear.
Its older than that. They probably made it a lot more popular.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #116 on: July 14, 2023, 02:00:22 pm »
According to one source (discussing the evolution of "naughty" in English usage):  “Naughty bits”, referring to the genitals, was first recorded in a Monty Python sketch in 1970. This euphemism was considered too explicit for American audiences and was bleeped out when the show was broadcast in the US.
https://theconversation.com/five-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-do-158102
There is a later comic-book series unrelated to Monty Python called "Naughty Bits" (1991 to 2004), and a sex-toy company.
There seems to have been a small outbreak of this usage in the immediate postwar period.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2023, 05:29:43 pm »
According to one source (discussing the evolution of "naughty" in English usage):  “Naughty bits”, referring to the genitals, was first recorded in a Monty Python sketch in 1970. This euphemism was considered too explicit for American audiences and was bleeped out when the show was broadcast in the US.

Around that time we were experimenting with flashes of (female) full frontal nudity. It had to be art, of course.

A famous rule of thumb used to distinguish between art and porn was the "angle of the dangle" relative to the Mull of Kintyre. I'm going to leave the interpretation of that to your imagination; it isn't difficult.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2023, 05:34:18 pm »
I was taught the theorem:  "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat."
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2023, 05:46:20 pm »
According to one source (discussing the evolution of "naughty" in English usage):  “Naughty bits”, referring to the genitals, was first recorded in a Monty Python sketch in 1970. This euphemism was considered too explicit for American audiences and was bleeped out when the show was broadcast in the US.
https://theconversation.com/five-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-do-158102
There is a later comic-book series unrelated to Monty Python called "Naughty Bits" (1991 to 2004), and a sex-toy company.
There seems to have been a small outbreak of this usage in the immediate postwar period.
I seem remember one of the risque comedians, well before Monty Python, like Max Wall or Max Miller, using that term when the BBC wouldn't allow them to say anything more direct. They still managed to get into plenty of trouble, though.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2023, 08:53:57 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.
I definitely agree about not being sure of what the truth is. I get that feeling about many topics discussed by the mainstream media. That doesn't change the fact that propaganda can garner support for some pretty extreme policies, such as those implemented in the Third Reich.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10035
  • Country: gb
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #121 on: July 14, 2023, 08:59:12 pm »
I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.
I definitely agree about not being sure of what the truth is. I get that feeling about many topics discussed by the mainstream media. That doesn't change the fact that propaganda can garner support for some pretty extreme policies, such as those implemented in the Third Reich.
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.
 

Offline tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21227
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #122 on: July 14, 2023, 09:07:01 pm »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9003
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #123 on: July 14, 2023, 09:10:58 pm »
History has no subjunctive mood.  (Russian proverb)
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20363
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: UK internet censoring
« Reply #124 on: July 14, 2023, 09:27:41 pm »
The Third Reich got support because the alternatives appeared worse. Once it got that support a huge number clearly had an "oh shit" moment when they realised what they had freely voted for. With a booming economy it took quite a while for that moment to occur for many people. For a long time they had achieved the end to chaos they had voted for.

Compare and contrast with the Brexit vote. :(

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.
Brexit is nothing but a small cut, compared to the huge injury of lockdown and mass immigration, which would have happened anyway.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf